ready for trial. On the other hand, in Judge
Martin's court, as has been stated by my col-
league, a thousand or twelve hundred cases
go over pretty much every term, be not being
able or if able not being willing to try them,
This amendment gives to Judge King's court
a jurisdiction $500 greater. It now comes
up to $500; and I propose to increase it to
$1,000; which takes out of Judge Martin's
court all the cases between $500 and $1,000
and places them in Judge King's. Judge
Martin's court has jurisdiction over all
cases of replevin, no matter what the
amount.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. Not if it is under
$100.
Mr. DANIEL. That is a matter of small im-
portance. They generally go before a magis-
trate. Judge King, I believe, never has a
replevin in his court. I think he has no ju-
risdiction over replevins at all. He simply
has the decision of cases under $500, and ap-
peal cases, and insolvent cases. I think even
with this distribution as proposed, to con-
tinue Judge Martin's jurisdiction over equity
as well as common law just as it now exists,
if we give Judge King this increased juris-
diction, Judge Martin's court will still be
much more crowded with business than
Judge King's court will be, and that the court
of common pleas will easily get through its
business up to $1,000; and that the business
in the superior court will be much facilitated.
I therefore think the amendment proper as I
have offered it, and hope the amendment to
the amendment will not prevail.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. The gentleman from
"Baltimore city (Mr. Stirling) said that the
court of common pleas usually adjourns for
eight weeks before the end of the term.
Mr. DANIEL. No, sir; my colleague said
that it bad frequently eight weeks leisure,
and sometimes more.
Mr, STOCKBRIDGE. Eight weeks sounds
very big; but everybody connected with
law business in the city of Baltimore knows
that all business is practically suspended from
about the first of July until the September
term of the court. There are your eight
weeks. That is in fact nine weeks.
Mr. STIRLING. I mean independent of the
usual summer vacation, I know that Judge
King adjourns his court every day at half
past one o'clock; and I could give a reason
for it if it was proper.
Mr. ABBOTT. My coleagues know more
about the workings of the courts than I do.
Yet I have been so unfortunate as to have
been in the courts and to have spent consid-
erable time there as juror, and occasionally
as a witness. The reason why I made this
proposition to amend is that I thought this
was going too far; that it was taking away
too much from the superior court, and put-
ting too much into Judge King's court. Yon
double the sum, and as a matter of course |
yon double the amount of business. The
great bulk of the cases that are tried are be-
tween five hundred and one thousand dollars.
Mr. THOMAS. By another amendment which
will be offered in relation to the court of
common pleas, »we should take from the ju-
risdiction of the court of common pleas all
magistrate's cases of a criminal nature, or em-
bracing fines, penalties or forfeitures. My
colleague who once held the same position 1
now do (Mr. Stirling,) knows that that
amounts to considerable in the course of a
year.
Mr. ABBOTT. If you propose to cure the
difficulty in another way, I withdraw the
amendment,
Mr STOCKBRIGE. I now move to amend
by striking out "one thousand" and insert-
ing " five hundred," and upon that I hope a
vote will betaken. But I wish to say one
word before the vote is taken. Gentlemen
are referring to private conversations with
judges, and all that sort of thing, the amount
of which is, that the judges on a certain oc-
casion in the street made no objection to
such a modification. I should have thought
it very stupid in him if be had. No such
thing was seriously proposed; and he might
not have thought he could control the con-
vention if he had opposed it. Some other
judge might as well attempt to restrain us by
an injunction. My colleague has been speak-
ing of his private conversations with the
judges, and of their approval of the present
system. Did not they include the jurisdic-
tion as well as other things. I wish my col-
league would tell me that now; when the
judges were in favor of retaining the existing
system, did not they wish the jurisdiction re-
tained too?
Mr. STIRLING. ' So far as I had conversa-
tion with them, it was with regard to the
proposition in the report, and the general
features of the present system, I have a very-
decided impression what the views of the
judges are; but I had no specific conversa-
tion.
Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I state as a fact that 1
have on more than one occasion heard every
judge there complain of being overworked as
it now stands. The judge whose jurisdiction
you now propose to much more than double,
has now original jurisdiction from one to
five hundred dollars, a range of four hundred
dollars. You propose to add to that a range
of five hundred dollars more. My observa-
tion is, and I think it will be sustained by
that of every gentleman present, that during
the general course of the year, four-fifths of
the civil business in the courts of Baltimore
city is between five hundred and one thousand
dollars.
i Mr. STIRLING. I think about one-half.
; Mr. STOCKBRIDGE. I think at least four-
fifths. But according to the estimate of my
colleague, yon propose to take one-half of the |
